WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined The Record with Greta van Susteren on Newsmax to discuss ongoing efforts to tackle universal injunctions. Grassley is leading legislation to limit federal court orders to parties directly before the court – ending the practice of universal injunctions and clarifying the constitutional role of the judicial branch.
Video and excerpts of Grassley’s remarks follow.
On the Alarming and Recent Rise of Universal Injunctions:
“Until 1963, the idea of a national injunction never came up. And it wasn't much used until maybe 10 or 15 years ago. But it really picked up speed in the first Trump administration, through the Biden administration and then now in this Trump administration. From that standpoint, our efforts to solve this unconstitutional issue of a national injunction ought to be bipartisan.
On the Bipartisan Need to Reform Universal Injunctions:
“Now, at this point, it's kind of a partisan issue, I think, for obvious reasons, but it should be bipartisan. Anyway, it's wrong to have one out of 660 district judges we have spread out through 94 different judicial districts to actually make policy.
…
“I said previously that [Democrats] ought to be concerned about it, because the Biden administration was hit by a few national injunctions as well.”
On Potential Action by the Supreme Court:
“[The] judicial branch is to interpret law. [The] executive branch and the legislative branch [are] to make policy. We should put a stop to this, and that's why I have legislation in … Even Democrat-appointed people like Justice Kagan have spoken out against the misuse of national injunctions.
“And so, they had a case before the Supreme Court … where this issue was discussed...[and] maybe we'll have the Supreme Court solve this issue for us. It might be difficult to get 60 votes in the United States Senate for this. But, if we can get the Supreme Court to do it, it will be just as effective and more timely than if Congress has to deal with it.”
On Legal Justifications for Nationwide Injunctions:
“I think the most important thing with this subject is there isn't any law that provides for national injunctions. There's no Supreme Court decision that has provided for a national injunction, and it's just judicial made – and probably more at the district court level than any other level. And it's just simply wrong for the one district judge to make a policy decision that should be left to the legislative and executive branches of government. It's just wrong for a district court judge to make that decision.
“And besides, the Constitution is very clear that the judicial branch can – two words – have ‘cases’ or ‘controversies.’ And they're supposed to make the decision just for the people that are before them. And they're taking advantage of a case before them to apply it to all 94 judicial districts around the country. And that's obviously not intended by the Constitution.”
-30-